Opinion Raging over road rules

The alarming statistics necessitate a re-look at our road safety legislation,the framework within which discipline and deterrence operate. The global status report on road safety issued by the WHO recently observes that “comprehensive and clear legislation,enforced with appropriate penalties and accompanied by public awareness campaigns,has been shown to be a critical factor in reducing road traffic injuries and deaths”. In another report,issued a couple of months ago by the Law Commission of India on legal reforms to combat road accidents,the recommendatory body deals largely with enhancing punishment for offences — but only peripherally recommends enforcement measures,like media campaigns and recognised driving schools through public-private partnership. Most importantly,it recommends that we amend the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to bring non-motorised transport within the purview of Parliament,and that there should be an over-arching Central enactment to cover all traffic in India.

The background for this is the constitutional quagmire regarding road safety legislation. As per the Constitution,while Parliament can enact laws relating to national highways,non-motorised transport is a state subject; and motorised transport is shared between the Centre and the states. It is under this power that the Central Motor Vehicles Act has been enacted. The states too,therefore,have their own Motor Vehicles Acts. Pan-Indian legislation doesn’t exist,and is needed.

After all,there is no point in discussing enforcement if a road user does not even know what he needs to do in order to be on the right side of the law! Start by using

Section 12 of the MV Act to regulate driving training schools. It could be made mandatory to be certified from such carefully-audited schools. This would circumvent,at least to some extent,unchecked and rampant tout-led licence procurement at RTOs.

The driving licence should be used as the most potent weapon to deter road indiscipline. Follow Section 24 of the MV Act and introduce an endorsement system on licences,so it records each serious driving offence of its holder. Apparently,the digitisation and networking of all RTOs in the country is on; this should make it easy for the police or the traffic offence courts to record a black mark on the licence; frequent black marks could cause automatic suspension. An over-reliance on enforcement and penalty requires dependence on an already over-burdened and highly inefficient criminal justice system. Therefore,it is important to shift focus to a more practicable deterrent.

A rather important but largely ignored regulation is the Rules of the Road Regulations 1989,which prescribe directions for traffic flow and traffic discipline (including pedestrian rights,emergency services rights). These govern everyday flow of traffic on the roads. There is no specific penalty prescribed for their violation; and the only penalty is under Section 177 of the MV Act — a fine of Rs100 for the first offence and Rs 300 for the second and subsequent offences. Not enough deterrence by any means.

Lane markings and complete compliance to those are critical to the flow of traffic. Markings are the only method by which each user predicts the behaviour of other users. And yet India has no detailed standards for laning and markings.

The hope for a civilised and disciplined city traffic must not be lost. It cannot be deadline 2010 (we have lost that opportunity) but can certainly be deadline 2012. We just need a simple robust medium-to-long-term policy of coupling education with enforcement and the “bhagidhari” of me and you. As the Supreme Court ruled in a 1997 order: “the control and regulation of traffic in NCR and NCT,Delhi,is a matter of paramount public safety and therefore is evidently within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution” — the right to life itself.

The writer practises at the Supreme Court

express@expressindia.com